Wednesday, February 17, 2010

So I have about 13 pounds to lose to reach the goal weight I've set for myself... and then I get to spend TWO HUNDRED dollars on clothes! That's motivation, right??? I don't think I've ever spent that much on clothing all at once in my life except maybe when shopping for my mission. Or my wedding.

The only problem is, I've been on a diet (more veggies, less desserts... don't worry, I'm not starving my baby) for two weeks and I haven't even lost a pound. Hmph. Should I just give up? Should I lower my goal? Should I call it quits and get out the Rocky Road? Aaargh.

For me, losing baby weight is KILLER. And I don't want to hear about how all you superwomen lost the weight with a snap of your fingers, thank you very much.

In a week or two I will start my exercise program and hopefully seal the deal...

(Or not. Last time I think I was still about five pounds above my pre-pregnancy weight when I got pregnant again. If I were to gain five pounds with every baby and have five kids... well, that's 25 pounds. And when you're not even five feet tall, well, those 25 pounds really count!)

this is to remind myself that it's worth it--gaining a pound or two to get two beautiful boys!

Thursday, February 11, 2010

***I wanted to add something to what I said in my post about giving birth. I feel like I might have discouraged some people from wanting to try a natural birth, and I feel bad about that. I think it is a different experience for each person, and it is worth trying at least once. Even though it hurt, there were a lot of really good things about Bennett's birth (no medical interventions or complications besides a tear, being alert after having him, being ready to go home-- we stayed only one night and might have left sooner if the hospital staff hadn't advised against it), and I am glad that I did it the way I did. I was only in pain for a few short hours, and I'm not in pain anymore!

The point of my previous post wasn't so much "Natural birth was lame-o, gimme the drugs" as "I was surprised that it hurt so much. How have women done this for so many years and why did God create us this way?"

So anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't take my word for it. Decide for yourself and if you prepare yourself for a natural birth, I think you will be glad you tried it! I definitely feel closer to the women of the past who didn't have the medical technology we have today, and feel so blessed to be in a country when and where medicine IS available to help.***

Bennett is 4 weeks old today! Yay! Time flies when you're having fun.And we really are having fun. We are so blessed. I love my family!!!

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

So Utah is looking at legislation that will "allow adults to transport smaller children in cars without a booster seat, as long as it [is] within four miles of their home and not on streets with speed limits over 45 mph."

As a law I think it seems to have too many conditions to be enforced easily. And if this bill would have come out a few months ago I might have thought it was stupid altogether. However, I somewhat recently saw a presentation by Steven Levitt (the author of Freakonomics) on TED.com where he argued that there is no added safety benefit for using car seats with children above the age of two. Rather than explaining all his points I'll let you watch/listen to his presentation:

This presentation was done back in 2005. Since that point Steven Levitt and his partner Stephen Dubner have done additional research that has supported this theory. Including that of the prevention of injury. They often talk about it on their nytimes blog. They point out that those people/organizations that think these conclusions are misleading and damaging will not share their data with them to prove them wrong once and for all (even though Levitt and Dubner say they will happily share their data with them in the process).

Now I don't know if Levitt and Dubner are right or not. In fact from my reading it seems they still don't know for sure, they just see all this data and what it could mean and want to know the answer. Although they certainly lean the "car seats are pointless after 2" way.

As a parent I want my children to be as safe as possible within reason. And I don't want any of my actions (or lack of actions) causing pain or death to my children. That would kill me. But I do want to know when I'm given an "expensive" placebo to try and make me feel better or an actual pill that works (to use Levitt's analogy).

So what do you all think on this subject? Have any of you seen actual reports that give data supporting the "make sure your kid is harnessed in rear-facing until age 18" point (yes I'm exaggerating but sometimes it sure feels like that is what they are saying)? Reports/articles giving actual data that compares car seats to seat belts instead of just SAYING car seats prevent injury and death? I haven't been able to find that yet, and certainly children's doctors seem to be in the majority in supporting car seats for much of childhood. But again along with Levitt's argument, I haven't seen any data to support what many doctors are saying. I've only found them saying car seats are better. Maybe that's just because they haven't seen a reason to share the hard, possibly confusing data yet. I certainly don't want a statistical analysis for every point my doctor makes.

So I really don't know what I think yet. But I'm curious what all of you think about and/or have seen on the safety of car seats in relation to seat belts for children over 2?